[dhcwg] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-dhc-problem-statement-of-mredhcpv6-05

Nagendra Nainar via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Mon, 25 May 2020 15:01 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietf.org
Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81ED33A0D08; Mon, 25 May 2020 08:01:30 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Nagendra Nainar via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: <ops-dir@ietf.org>
Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org, draft-ietf-dhc-problem-statement-of-mredhcpv6.all@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.1.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <159041889027.19956.502386482709566675@ietfa.amsl.com>
Reply-To: Nagendra Nainar <naikumar@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 25 May 2020 08:01:30 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/0jCgbtRbGJyA3SBcdxw2xB8XJx4>
Subject: [dhcwg] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-dhc-problem-statement-of-mredhcpv6-05
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dhcwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 May 2020 15:01:31 -0000

Reviewer: Nagendra Nainar
Review result: Has Issues

Hi,

I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's ongoing
effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.  These
comments were written with the intent of improving the operational aspects of
the IETF drafts per guidelines in RFC5706.

Comments that are not addressed in last call may be included
in AD reviews during the IESG review.  Document editors and WG chairs should
treat these comments just like any other last call comments.

Overall Summary:

This draft is attempting to summarize the problems related to the current
practice for extending DHCPv6 protocol. This document does not propose any
solution, framework, or protocol extensions and so it does not raise any
backward compatibility challenges or operational considerations.

While the document does not raise any operational/management considerations, I
am choosing "Has Issues" as the overall draft may need substantial changes.

Few comments below:

 The manageability, security, privacy protection, and traceability of
   networks can be supported by extending the DHCPv6 protocol according
   to requirements.  This document provides current extension practices
   and typical DHCPv6 server softwares on extensions, defines a DHCPv6
   general model, discusses some extension points, and presents
   extension cases.

--> The abstract is not clear in reflecting what the draft is about. Based on
the above, this draft appears to be discussing current extension practice,
extension points, and cases which is more like a survey document that
summarizes what we have currently. This being a draft that attempts to document
the problem statement, it will be good to reflect the same in the abstract.

--> The Introduction section may need some rework. It is not clear in defining
what is multi-requirement extension problem.

--> I think, a section (or sub-section) clarifying what is multi-requirement
extension with an example use case will help the readers to better understand
the objective of this document.

Regards,
Nagendra